This Â
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I resolved the discussion at RFD (listed 21 November 2005) as no consensus because the nominated reason isn't a criterion to delete redirects. Here is an archive of the discussion:
Removed entry from RFD and template from redirect. Demi T/ C 07:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This topic needs to have its own article, but I'm not ready to write a stub from scratch that I'm sure won't get reverted right away. It will probably be a copy-paste-and-edit of the relevant paragraph(s) in radiometric dating, for people to expand upon. -- arkuat (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make clear that I did not write the text of this article, I just copied it out of radiometric dating because I thought the subject needed its own article. See page history of radiometric dating for the origins of the text of this article. -- arkuat (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt UâPb means a range, eg. from U to Pb and U-Pb means U and Pb? Christian75 ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is the right way to ask for attention to something--never done it before! At the start of this article it says that U-Pb dating can be used to date rocks that formed "from about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1â1 percent range." Is 1 million too young? I was under the impression that accuracy for U-Pb was withing about 250,000 years, which is too large a percentage of 1 million. However, I'm not an expert. For example: [1] "In a paper published this week in Science, geochemist Roland Mundil of the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC) and his colleagues at BGC and UC Berkeley report that uranium/lead (U/Pb) dating can be extremely accurate - to within 250,000 years - but only if the zircons from volcanic ash used in the analysis are specially treated." Chonneyo ( talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
References
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I resolved the discussion at RFD (listed 21 November 2005) as no consensus because the nominated reason isn't a criterion to delete redirects. Here is an archive of the discussion:
Removed entry from RFD and template from redirect. Demi T/ C 07:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This topic needs to have its own article, but I'm not ready to write a stub from scratch that I'm sure won't get reverted right away. It will probably be a copy-paste-and-edit of the relevant paragraph(s) in radiometric dating, for people to expand upon. -- arkuat (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make clear that I did not write the text of this article, I just copied it out of radiometric dating because I thought the subject needed its own article. See page history of radiometric dating for the origins of the text of this article. -- arkuat (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt UâPb means a range, eg. from U to Pb and U-Pb means U and Pb? Christian75 ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is the right way to ask for attention to something--never done it before! At the start of this article it says that U-Pb dating can be used to date rocks that formed "from about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1â1 percent range." Is 1 million too young? I was under the impression that accuracy for U-Pb was withing about 250,000 years, which is too large a percentage of 1 million. However, I'm not an expert. For example: [1] "In a paper published this week in Science, geochemist Roland Mundil of the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC) and his colleagues at BGC and UC Berkeley report that uranium/lead (U/Pb) dating can be extremely accurate - to within 250,000 years - but only if the zircons from volcanic ash used in the analysis are specially treated." Chonneyo ( talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
References